JUDGMENT :

RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.

1. The present writ application has been filed, inter alia, praying for a direction upon the respondent no.4 to release the full salary of the petitioner from 2nd May, 2012, to 24th September, 2014.

2. The writ petitioner joined the service of the respondent no.2 in the year 1988. The terms and conditions of service of the petitioner would appear from the letter of appointment dated 26th July, 1988. It is the petitioner’s case that while in service, by reasons of illness, the petitioner could not perform his normal duties from 5th March, 2012, to 1st May, 2012. Subsequently, on 2nd May, 2012, when he went to the head office, Traffic Department, for obtaining resume-duty order as per the existing system of the organisation, the Junior Traffic Officer upon going through his file requested him to report back after 2/3 days and meet the dealing clerk. Accordingly, the petitioner reported back on 7th May, 2012 and met the dealing clerk. Unfortunately, the petitioner was neither sent to the company’s Medical Officer for medical examination, nor was he issued the resume-duty order.

3. Faced with the aforesaid situation, the petitioner by a written communication dated 11th May, 2012, had lodged a complaint with the Managing Director as also the Chief Operating Manager of the respondent no.2. Upon receipt of the aforesaid communication, the respondents instead of issuing resume-duty order issued a show-cause dated 29th May, 2012, recording therein that the petitioner had absented from his duties since 5th March, 2012, without any intimation and he had also not appeared before the authority, nor had he submitted any kind of leave application. As such, he was called upon to explain why action should not be taken against him for his continuous unauthorised absence for 58 days till 2nd May, 2012.

4. The petitioner had duly responded to the aforesaid show-cause by a communication dated 18th June, 2012, and had explained the circumstances for his absence. According to the petitioner, since the respondents were satisfied with his explanation, no further steps were taken by them in furtherance of the show-cause.

5. Unfortunately, despite the aforesaid, since, the respondents did not permit the petitioner to join his duties, the petitioner was constrained to file a writ application before this Hon’ble Court which was registered as WP No.555 of 2012. Pursuant to the direction passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 17th September, 2014, the petitioner was permitted to join his duties. The resumption order is dated 24th September, 2014.

6. Although liberty was reserved for him to apply for back wages and despite applying before the respondents, for disbursal of back wages in terms of the liberty given by the order dated 17th September, 2014, since the respondents did not take any steps in the matter, the present writ application has been filed.

7. Mr. Basu, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, by referring to two diary entries dated 23rd March, 2012, and 8th April, 2012, submits that it is on the basis of the aforesaid diary entries that the show-cause notice dated 29th May, 2012, had been issued. He says that since the petitioner had reported to the office on 2nd May, 2012, the aforesaid show-cause records the absence of the petitioner from 5th March, 2012 till 2nd May, 2012. It is still further submitted that the aforesaid show-cause was not proceeded with by the respondents inasmuch as they were satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner. According to Mr. Basu, the respondents prevented the petitioner from discharging his duties and did not permit him to join, for which the previous writ application had been filed. It is only on the basis of the order dated 17th September, 2014, that the petitioner was permitted to join. Although the Hon’ble Court had granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondents for back wages, despite the petitioner applying in terms of such liberty, the r